Download
1 / 47
510 likes | 559 Vues
Ethical Theory. Seeking a Standard for Morally Correct Action. Overview. What is an ethical theory? The two main ethical theories: consequentialism and nonconsequentialism Focus on consequentialism Consequentialism as applied in business and public policy. Three Levels of Ethical Judgment.
E N D
Ethical Theory Seeking a Standardfor Morally Correct Action
Overview • What is an ethical theory? • The two main ethical theories: consequentialism and nonconsequentialism • Focus on consequentialism • Consequentialism as applied in business and public policy
Three Levels of Ethical Judgment • Particular cases: e.g., Mary’s abortion was morally wrong. • Principles: e.g.: • “Abortion is wrong except to save a human life” (applies to all cases of abortion) • “Killing another person is wrong except in self-defense.” (applies to all cases of killing) • The most general principle would apply to all actions—this is a theory.
A Theory is an Ethical Standard for all Actions • An answer to the question: what makes a morally right act right? • What do all morally right acts have in common?
Consequentialism • The morally right act is the one with the best consequences. • Consequentialism also called utilitarianism • Totally future oriented: looks at results • Certainly general enough. It can apply to all actions. But is it correct
Consequentialism: No: an action is right or wrong depending on whether its consequences are good or bad. Right good Nonconsequentialism Yes: Some actions are inherently good or bad. Rule-based theory Rights-based theory Are any actions good or bad in themselves?
Consequentialism The only thing that determines the morality of an action are its results (consequences) Nonconsequentialism Consequences are not the only thing to consider Consequentialism and Nonconsequentialism
Are any actions immoral in and of themselves? Imagine you can save 10 children from dying of a painful disease by capturing one child from an orphanage and doing an experiment that will cause that one child a painful death. No other way to save the 10 children. Would it be morally okay?
Nonconsequentialist • Certain moral rules define correct actions: e.g., “it is always immoral to act with an intent to kill innocent people.” • Can be formulated as moral rights of the person acted on; e.g., “children have an absolute moral right not to be subjects of dangerous experiments.” • Any act violating a moral rule or right is inherently immoral (regardless of results).
Consequentialist Response • Consequentialism not as crude as first appears. • Would not condone killing if same good result possible with less harm • Must consider long-term and subtle consequences as well (e.g., precedent set)
Consequentialism “in practice” • If right act is one that creates good consequences, good for whom? • Answer: for everyone affected. • Must be impartial: self or family counts no more (or less) than anyone else
If right act is one with good consequences, what is “good”? • Happiness as only good • Bentham: quantity of pleasure • Mill quality as well as quantity of pleasure • Satisfaction of preferences as the good (less paternalistic?) • Goes with capitalism • “Preference utilitarianism”
Problem of Preferences • People often want things based on manipulation or advertising. • People are irrational at estimating risks. • People often desire things for short-term gain that conflict with genuine happiness (smoking, spending spree, long-term environmental damage for quick profits).
How Are These Points Determined? • Number of people affected • “Intensity” of the effect • Likelihood • (Should we also consider whether effect will happen sooner or later?)
A weak criticism of consequentialism: “we don’t know what’s going to happen” • Consequentialism takes that into account (likelihood) • Reasonable to “play the odds,” just as we do in everyday life • Falsely assumes that a good ethical theory must be simple and easy to apply.
How does utilitarian theory get applied as cost-benefit analysis? • The “minus points” are costs (e.g., $$$) • The “plus points” are benefits such as • Lives saved • Reduction in risk of dying • Suffering avoided (e.g., days in hospital) • Pleasure gained • Typical: is it worth spending a million dollars to • Reduce the risk of cancer in a community by 10%? • Satisfy the desire of people for clean air and nice views?
What are the problems of CBA? • The “dwarfing of soft variables”—stuff that can’t easily be quantified as dollars like enjoyment of a sunny day. • Defining the value of a human life in dollar terms. • Expected future earnings? • Willingness to pay for reduction in risks • Wording of surveys • Irrationality of popular perception of risks.
Problems Applying vs. Criticisms • “Problems applying” utilitarianism do not challenge the whole approach of the theory. (Criticisms do.) • They are things utilitarians disagree about. • If we decide consequentialism (utilitarianism) is the right theory, then we may still debate • What things are good (happiness, etc.)? • How to figure out the numbers (e.g., $ for life)
Quiz 1 In one clear sentence, state what the course pack suggests to be one of the good criticisms of consequentialism. Bonus: In one clear sentence, state the criticism of consequentialism in the excerpt from the Williams essay.
Key Concepts • Moral rules and moral rights • Justice (as one part of morality) • Morally relevant difference between acts and omissions • Intuition and “reflective equilibrium” • Testing whether an argument withstands criticism
Problems Applying vs. Criticisms • “Problems applying” utilitarianism do not challenge the whole approach of the theory. (Criticisms do.) • They are things utilitarians disagree about. • If we decide consequentialism (utilitarianism) is the right theory, then we may still debate • What things are good (happiness, etc.)? • How to figure out the numbers (e.g., $ for life)
Criticisms of Consequentialism(overview) • Utilitarianism does not take into account rights and rules. • Utilitarianism does not take into account justice. • Consequentialism does not take into account special obligations to special people • Consequentialism does not take into account the morally relevant difference between acts and omissions • Consequentialism requires too much of us (relate this to #3)
Consequentialism ignores moral rules and moral rights • A fundamental question of all ethics: Do we need the notion of rights? • Big problems: Where do rights come from? What rights do we have? • But can we have an acceptable ethical theory without rights?
A Test Case for Consequentialism A friendly country turns over to the United States someone with close ties to, and information about, terrorist activities planned against the United States. You think that gaining this information could prevent a terrorist attack and many deaths. The man is hostile and not ready to talk. What is it morally acceptable to do to extract information from this man? What are the limits?
“We Broke Him” • For three months of interrogation, Mr. Faruq provided investigators with only scraps. "He was a hostile interrogation," said a Western intelligence specialist. • Then, two weeks ago, the interrogators "broke him," the specialist said. • Hedeclined to provide any details of the techniques employed in the questioning.
Theory and Particular Cases • Can’t decide on particular case first and then pick the theory that matches. Why not? • But we do test theory by application to specific cases. (Analogy with science.) • Debate on role of intuition. • Reflective equilibrium.
10% of population becomes slaves. 90% are extremely happy. Society has greatest balance of +/- points. Utilitarian chooses this. Everyone has freedom Total happiness not as great Utilitarianism Ignores Justice
Justice in 2 Areas • Distributive justice: • how should economic goods be distributed? • Is it fair that some are rich and others poor • Criminal justice: what is the justification for punishment? Two main approaches: • Utilitarian • Protection of society • Rehabilitation, if possible • Deterrence • Retributive • People freely choosing evil deserve punishment • The punishment should fit the crime • Only the guilty should be punished (We didn’t discuss criminal justice in class; see course pack)
Utilitarianism Ignores Special Obligations to Special People But why should I save my daughter over 100 starving children? • Cannot appeal to feelings • Cannot appeal to what most people would do. • Need an ethical principle.
What principle might justify special obligation of… • Parents to their children? • Children to their parents? • Person to a 2-year-old brother? • Person to a cousin? • Person to a friend?
Williams: kill one Indian to save 19 others? • Why does Williams think utilitarianism is wrong? • What does he mean by “integrity”? • a special responsibility for what we do in contrast to what others do or what we let happen.
Morally Relevant Difference Between Acts and Omissions • What if killing can reduce the number who die, as Williams’ Indian example? • Is it morally worse to kill a patient who wants to die than not to treat? • Is it morally worse to bomb innocent civilians than to allow them to die by not acting? • Is it wrong to buy running shoes when the money could save many people’s lives? • Some criticize utilitarianism for requiring too much.
Think About • What is the strongest criticism of utilitarianism? Why? • Can utilitarianism withstand criticism? • Basic: A claim is well-grounded if the arguments for it can withstand criticism. • A “well-grounded claim” is one more worthy of belief.
Quiz 2 (answer either one for up to 5 points; answer both for possible bonus points) 1. In one clear sentence, state one formulation of Kant’s categorical imperative. (The course pack discusses 2 of them) 2. In the Kant excerpt, he gives 4 examples of how the categorical imperative would apply. State one of them.
Kantian Ethics • Difference between acts and omissions: action is done with a particular intent • When I buy running shoes, I don’t intend to kill innocent people • Kant: utilitarianism doesn’t understand the meaning of a moral agent. • Kant: consequences are irrelevant to morality • Happiness and unhappiness can result from earthquakes, sunsets, puppy dogs.
Consequentialism The only thing that determines the morality of an action are its results (consequences) Nonconsequentialism Consequences are not the only thing to consider Consequentialism and Nonconsequentialism
Kant’s 2 main concepts (review) • The good will • The categorical imperative
Events in the world Causeevent No freedom No moral praise or blame Actions of moral agent Actionpurposes, reasons, values Free will Can formulate idea of a moral rule Can choose whether or not to act Can be morally praiseworthy or blameworthy Kant’s view of human action
The “Good Will” and Kant’s Concept of a Person as Moral Agent
Kant: desires and inclinations are irrelevant • Two neighbors: one desires to kill you and doesn’t; one has only loving desires • Kant: one is not praiseworthy or blameworthy for feelings, desires. These are result of heredity and environment. • One can choose whether to follow desires or moral rule when they conflict. • One is responsible for this choice
Categorical Imperative:2 Formulations For a rule to be a moral rule, it must be one that • you could will to universalize. • treats persons as ends in themselves and not mere means.
“Could will to universalize” • Not that you would want everyone to follow it. (Then it would change with each person’s wants.) • Ideally: impossible to will everyone to follow; e.g., “never help others but always be helped by other people.” • Also rules possible for everyone to follow but you couldn’t will it.
Criticisms of Kant’s Ethics • It is too abstract to generate rules that can guide concrete action. • Kant’s ethics has no way to resolve conflicts of rules (or rights) • Kantian rules are too rigid. (They fail to consider consequences!)
